Most consumers may not care about Vista; nevertheless, aside from enthusiasts and pros, most Mac users tended not to care about Mac OS X and or it's various major updates. Most consumers adopt a new OS when they're forced to. Be it a bundle with a new computer, or a system requirement for a software package.
After being lured in they may start to value the new OS, but I would argue that both Microsoft and Apple dish out the majority of their licenses to people who are being required to get a new OS.
Reading the article I'm wondering what will happen to the poor schmuck who buy a "Vista Upgrade" when he'll need to reinstall his PC after a crash ?
If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...
Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed.
oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race
"There will be thousands of tonnes of dumped monitors, video cards and whole computers," said Sian Berry, the Green Party's principal speaker. "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a Vista upgrade layer when they go through our landfill sites."
Yes. Certain nVidia AMD64 motherboard chipsets had problems with 4gb of RAM. I am shocked about this issue with Intel mobos. The newer nVidia motherboard chipsets for Intel Core2Duo (Conroe) should have no problem with accessing full dual-channel 2x1gb 2x1gb (total 4gb) RAM. AFAIK.
It's a 32-bit limitation, not a chipset limitation.
Vista 64-bit should not have a problem seeing all the memory installed, 4, 8, 16GB, depending on the motherboard and chipset. If Vista 64-bit is well coded even 32-bit applications will get a full 4GB memory space without limitations.
Vista 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory, and some of that memory space needs to be set aside for I/O, e.g., graphics card, chipset, etc. That's where the 768MB is going. You can enable PAE to get access to higher memory areas, but PAE is much slower.
Any decent Intel processor now supports 64-bit. The problem is 64-bit native drivers for Windows, where any hardware that isn't modern or common is very unlikely to ever get a driver. So you have to choose what is important for you - compatibility or larger memory space. Linux probably has more support for hardware in its 64-bit incarnation than Vista (64-bit Linux for AMD64 has been around for years now).
As for your post about nVidia/AMD64 issues, AMD put the memory controller on the CPU not the chipset, so there shouldn't have been any issues except for running a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ of installed memory.
Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.
Microsoft
Microsoft doesn't really have to. All in all, Apple is not a very credible threat and it's the biggest one out there. They got the operating system goods, but their "come in on our terms" attitude drives people away.
Windows Vista Ultimate = $400 + Security software = Priceless.
Mac OS X (Ultimate) = $129
Will all Windows Vista Features work on my 3 year old machine = Most likely not.
Will all Mac OS X Features work on my 3 year old machine = Yes.
Will I have all the drivers I need to run Windows Vista comfortably = No.
Will I have all the drivers I need to run Mac OS X comfortably = What drivers? :P
Will Windows Vista's Features make OS X look dated = No.
Will Mac OS X.5 Leopard's Features make Windows Vista look dated = Most likely yes.
Will the new look of Windows Vista make it easiers to use then its predecessor = In practice the opposite is true.
Will the new look of OS X make it easiers to use then its predecessor = Most likely yes.
Will you switch back to Windows now = No.
Will you buy Leopard = Most likely yes.
Are you glad to be rid of Windows = Hell yes.
Are you glad to be a Mac user = Hell yes.
Was there a point to all this = Yes.
What was the point = Switch.
Actually, it would be more like $210 for OSX. Microsoft's sorry excuse for iLife competition is bundled with the OS. The rest of it holds up. Except for the drivers thing. Yes, the Mac does have and need them and in most cases, they support the exact same devices. The difference is that the Mac's go back to 2001 and windows goes back to like 1981.
Word has even <a href="http://bingo.isfullofcrap.com/interview.mp3">gotten to me</a> that our interplanatary friends are not impressed with Vista. They do however appreciate the loopholes it contains right now.
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac. I think I remember there being some features that are unavailable due to some being tied to the Intel processors on the new Macs. It isn't just the age of the Mac.
There may be some degradation based upon chip speed or RAM, and perhaps some eye candy may be hobbled due to older, less capable graphics cards, but AFAIK otherwise, Leopard should work on anything running on a G3 or newer.
I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac.
No, I'm not speaking of Boot Camp.
Tiger was released in late April 2005. At the time, Apple still sold iBooks and Mac minis that did not take full advantage of all of Tiger's features. Most importantly, they did not support GPU-accelerated Core Image effects. They accelerated them through the CPU, but that's not quite the same. (Most prominently, you'll notice through the lack of ripple effect in Dashboard.) But Ireland wasn't even talking about then-current computers, but about computers from three years ago. Three years before late April 2005? In April 2002, the iBooks were still G3s! They don't even even have AltiVec, and therefore don't even support CPU acceleration, so Core Image is almost entirely out of question, and don't bother trying to use both Spotlight and Dashboard unless you use the absolute maximum of RAM.
It won't be any different for Leopard. Assuming it's released in April, you'd have to consider machines from April 2004. Many of those will not fully work with all of Leopard's features. Core Animation? Good luck with that. It'll work, but it will be un-fun to the point that you'll prefer to turn it off entirely. And then, what do you do once applications start requiring it?
This is not to slander Apple in any way, but to put things into perspective. When a new operating system requires modern hardware, there's nothing wrong with that, whether Apple does it, Microsoft does it, or anyone else does it. I've found Windows Vista's system requirements to be moderately reasonable, and the same will probably be true of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard as well. But that doesn't mean everyone's invited. To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.
To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.
No, I wasn't talking about Boot Camp, either, although that is definitely tied to the processor so it does apply.
I don't remember which features, and what you mention in the rest of your post may be right on the mark.
My remark is to the affect that, as I remember the comments at the time, the features that will be unavailable are tied directly to functions available through the Intel processor Apple uses, and the Powermac processors don't support those functions.
As for the rest, you are correct, if Apple is to move forward, as in the past, they must at some point decide who comes along and who gets left behind. One of Microsoft's greatest problems is just this issue of legacy apps and hardware. They can't seem to decide where to draw the line, so they just never get around to doing it.
Apple does, so they can move forward faster and cleaner. (Which, yeah, helps drive the hardware side - but then as a Mac user since 1987, I'm not complaining!)
oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race
Someone in an earlier post noted that all Vista discs come with Vista Ultimate but have everything blocked off until you buy the upgrades. Therefore, if you bought an upgrarde, you would have a new serial number (or whatever) to install whatever version you upgraded to.
Go buy a copy of OSX and Apple will tell you that it can only be installed on Apple hardware. What's the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by talksense101
Vista will sell millions as it is bundled with almost all new personal computers. But anyone with a clue will avoid the product unless they can afford to get the ultimate edition which provides functionality similar to that of OS-X. Microsoft has seriously curtailed the functionality of the system with the "lesser" editions.
At the end of the day, what M$ doesn't seem to understand is that it is selling a f!@#ing operating system. Don't tell me what the f!@#! I am allowed to do with my computer. I don't plan to upgrade to this trash on my PC until XP support is stopped after the next five years. I will probably switch to Linux at that point in time.
Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.
Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.
I've been using Windows at work ever since it was launched (and DOS before that) and I've heard it all before. This version will be faster, more secure, etc, etc and every time I've been let down. I'm sure Vista will look better than XP but at the end of the day a dog is still a dog underneath even if you give it a makeover. This is why I switched to the Mac platform at home and why I'll never go back.
Forgive the pun but Leopard will knock the spots off Vista!
Comments
After being lured in they may start to value the new OS, but I would argue that both Microsoft and Apple dish out the majority of their licenses to people who are being required to get a new OS.
If he needs to install his previous OS before being able to perform the upgrade and his previous license was revoked how is he supposed to do that ?
Buy a new PC to get Vista along ? Buy a new full-fledged license of Vista ? Or hope that his license key was not really marked as revoked by Microsoft to allow him to re-install his previous OS... better clone your OS right after installation just to be sure...
Good thinking Microsoft... continue this way to make life "easier" on the average PC Joe.
the license key for an existing version of Windows becomes invalid the moment a Vista upgrade is installed.
oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race
Does someone have too much time on their hands = Yes.
excellent work though!
"There will be thousands of tonnes of dumped monitors, video cards and whole computers," said Sian Berry, the Green Party's principal speaker. "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a Vista upgrade layer when they go through our landfill sites."
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/new...001815,00.html
Nothing quite like opportiunistic politicians, but if they're funny, it's almost forgivable...
Yes. Certain nVidia AMD64 motherboard chipsets had problems with 4gb of RAM. I am shocked about this issue with Intel mobos. The newer nVidia motherboard chipsets for Intel Core2Duo (Conroe) should have no problem with accessing full dual-channel 2x1gb 2x1gb (total 4gb) RAM. AFAIK.
It's a 32-bit limitation, not a chipset limitation.
Vista 64-bit should not have a problem seeing all the memory installed, 4, 8, 16GB, depending on the motherboard and chipset. If Vista 64-bit is well coded even 32-bit applications will get a full 4GB memory space without limitations.
Vista 32-bit can only address 4GB of memory, and some of that memory space needs to be set aside for I/O, e.g., graphics card, chipset, etc. That's where the 768MB is going. You can enable PAE to get access to higher memory areas, but PAE is much slower.
Any decent Intel processor now supports 64-bit. The problem is 64-bit native drivers for Windows, where any hardware that isn't modern or common is very unlikely to ever get a driver. So you have to choose what is important for you - compatibility or larger memory space. Linux probably has more support for hardware in its 64-bit incarnation than Vista (64-bit Linux for AMD64 has been around for years now).
As for your post about nVidia/AMD64 issues, AMD put the memory controller on the CPU not the chipset, so there shouldn't have been any issues except for running a 32-bit OS with 4GB+ of installed memory.
Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.
Microsoft
Microsoft doesn't really have to. All in all, Apple is not a very credible threat and it's the biggest one out there. They got the operating system goods, but their "come in on our terms" attitude drives people away.
Windows Vista Ultimate = $400 + Security software = Priceless.
Mac OS X (Ultimate) = $129
Will all Windows Vista Features work on my 3 year old machine = Most likely not.
Will all Mac OS X Features work on my 3 year old machine = Yes.
Will I have all the drivers I need to run Windows Vista comfortably = No.
Will I have all the drivers I need to run Mac OS X comfortably = What drivers? :P
Will Windows Vista's Features make OS X look dated = No.
Will Mac OS X.5 Leopard's Features make Windows Vista look dated = Most likely yes.
Will the new look of Windows Vista make it easiers to use then its predecessor = In practice the opposite is true.
Will the new look of OS X make it easiers to use then its predecessor = Most likely yes.
Will you switch back to Windows now = No.
Will you buy Leopard = Most likely yes.
Are you glad to be rid of Windows = Hell yes.
Are you glad to be a Mac user = Hell yes.
Was there a point to all this = Yes.
What was the point = Switch.
Actually, it would be more like $210 for OSX. Microsoft's sorry excuse for iLife competition is bundled with the OS. The rest of it holds up. Except for the drivers thing. Yes, the Mac does have and need them and in most cases, they support the exact same devices. The difference is that the Mac's go back to 2001 and windows goes back to like 1981.
Will all Windows Vista Features work on my 3 year old machine = Most likely not.
Will all Mac OS X Features work on my 3 year old machine = Yes.
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
Is this really true? Perhaps there are just a few areas that only the latest Macs will work with? Does anyone know what aspects won't work with pre 2004 Macs?
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac. I think I remember there being some features that are unavailable due to some being tied to the Intel processors on the new Macs. It isn't just the age of the Mac.
There may be some degradation based upon chip speed or RAM, and perhaps some eye candy may be hobbled due to older, less capable graphics cards, but AFAIK otherwise, Leopard should work on anything running on a G3 or newer.
I believe that you are thinking about the issue of Intel vs. PowerMac.
No, I'm not speaking of Boot Camp.
Tiger was released in late April 2005. At the time, Apple still sold iBooks and Mac minis that did not take full advantage of all of Tiger's features. Most importantly, they did not support GPU-accelerated Core Image effects. They accelerated them through the CPU, but that's not quite the same. (Most prominently, you'll notice through the lack of ripple effect in Dashboard.) But Ireland wasn't even talking about then-current computers, but about computers from three years ago. Three years before late April 2005? In April 2002, the iBooks were still G3s! They don't even even have AltiVec, and therefore don't even support CPU acceleration, so Core Image is almost entirely out of question, and don't bother trying to use both Spotlight and Dashboard unless you use the absolute maximum of RAM.
It won't be any different for Leopard. Assuming it's released in April, you'd have to consider machines from April 2004. Many of those will not fully work with all of Leopard's features. Core Animation? Good luck with that. It'll work, but it will be un-fun to the point that you'll prefer to turn it off entirely. And then, what do you do once applications start requiring it?
This is not to slander Apple in any way, but to put things into perspective. When a new operating system requires modern hardware, there's nothing wrong with that, whether Apple does it, Microsoft does it, or anyone else does it. I've found Windows Vista's system requirements to be moderately reasonable, and the same will probably be true of Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard as well. But that doesn't mean everyone's invited. To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.
No, I'm not speaking of Boot Camp.
To develop great software, you have to make compromises, and throwing away compatibility for legacy machines is very frequently one of them.
No, I wasn't talking about Boot Camp, either, although that is definitely tied to the processor so it does apply.
I don't remember which features, and what you mention in the rest of your post may be right on the mark.
My remark is to the affect that, as I remember the comments at the time, the features that will be unavailable are tied directly to functions available through the Intel processor Apple uses, and the Powermac processors don't support those functions.
As for the rest, you are correct, if Apple is to move forward, as in the past, they must at some point decide who comes along and who gets left behind. One of Microsoft's greatest problems is just this issue of legacy apps and hardware. They can't seem to decide where to draw the line, so they just never get around to doing it.
Apple does, so they can move forward faster and cleaner. (Which, yeah, helps drive the hardware side - but then as a Mac user since 1987, I'm not complaining!)
oh dear god, say it ain't so??? do you think they sat down and actually tried to make the licensing agreement as evil as this? the day microsoft (and hopefully all other companies with this kind of attitude) goes out of business will be a happy day for the human race
Someone in an earlier post noted that all Vista discs come with Vista Ultimate but have everything blocked off until you buy the upgrades. Therefore, if you bought an upgrarde, you would have a new serial number (or whatever) to install whatever version you upgraded to.
Vista will sell millions as it is bundled with almost all new personal computers. But anyone with a clue will avoid the product unless they can afford to get the ultimate edition which provides functionality similar to that of OS-X. Microsoft has seriously curtailed the functionality of the system with the "lesser" editions.
At the end of the day, what M$ doesn't seem to understand is that it is selling a f!@#ing operating system. Don't tell me what the f!@#! I am allowed to do with my computer. I don't plan to upgrade to this trash on my PC until XP support is stopped after the next five years. I will probably switch to Linux at that point in time.
Microsoft continues to be the worlds worst at marketing. Somehow, Apple while putting no serial #'s or applications has tons of people buying genuine copies of OS X (nice that there's no upgrade option, that would be hell) because it's such a good product. Maybe Microsoft should put more into R&D and less into copying Apple/bad and useless marketing and activation staff.
Microsoft continues to be worst at marketing? There is a reason why Apple was almost gone... They did a little better at first... Part of their marketing strategy was to open up development.
Now, I think they suck at it.
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
Forgive the pun but Leopard will knock the spots off Vista!
You will not be able to use all of OS X Leopard's features on any machine from early 2004.
Heck, Core Image doesn't work with a G4 mini, which predated Tiger by only a few months.
edit: you aready mentioned this a couple posts later.